honors410-1011 - Tumblr blog

[honors410-1011]

Introduction

In earlier years, juveniles were treated as adults and subjected to the same justice system. As technology advanced and the understanding of science improved, the view on sentencing adolescents was vastly changed. Several cases have been taken up to the Supreme Court in an attempt to improve the juvenile justice system so that adolescents are treated fairly.

The first juvenile justice systems were established in the 1900's with the main goal of rehabilitation instead of punishment. The system sought to reform juveniles through encouraging rehabilitation based on independent needs, rather than through punitive sentences of criminal courts. Much of the proceeding was to the discretion of the judge who aimed to act in the best interest of the child. Overall, the origin of juvenile justice systems was to protect the child from engaging in further crimes and dismissed the notion of trying adolescents as adults.

The rise in crime in the 1980s, however, changed how juveniles were treated in the system. Particularly, the question of how juveniles who committed serious offenses should be dealt with was a major source of contention. State legal reforms rejected traditional approaches and changed to an emphasis on punishing the crime of a juvenile. Such a change originated from the belief that the justice system was too soft on adolescent when they are just as culpable for a serious offense as an adult would be. The intent of juvenile justice systems had thus been changed and would remain as such for many years.

With the improvement of information available to the courts, there came another shift in handling young offenders. Originally, the Supreme Court ruled against leniency for juveniles that would have dismissed the ability for a juvenile to face capital punishment, or life without parole. With further science data available and the morality of punishing young offenders with the ultimate death sentence, there came a new era of reformation in the juvenile justice system.

A fairly recent change in the system deals with life without parole as it pertains to juveniles. Many cases have challenged the ability to sentence a child to life without parole given their young age and lack of maturity. Once these cases have proven to have a basis and been sent to the Supreme Court, new problems arose. Should an adult, who was sentenced as a juvenile to life without parole, be set free? If so, what does this retroactivity look like for the now adults? To answer these questions, one must delve into the timeline of the juvenile justice system and have the ability to comprehend the differences between an adult and an adolescent.

[honors410-1011]

The Adolescent Brain

The argument of whether an adolescent is truly intellectually and structurally different from an adult, has been ongoing for many decades. The best place to look when trying to confirm or deny that an adolescent is not fully developed as compared to an adult, is the brain.

Scientists describe adolescent as a time riddled with changes and transformations both internally and externally. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) found that myelinogenesis, mandatory for neuronal insulation, continues from childhood and only begins to stagger at adulthood. Also found was that in adolescents Glutamatergic neurotransmission predominates, which is responsible for immature and impulsive behavior.

Research done in the past 25 years shows that adolescents have brains that are in very active states of development. For example, huge changes occur in the limbic system which can account for lack of self-control, rash decision making, and risk-taking behaviors in juveniles. Risk-taking, in particular, is common to most adolescents within the age range of 15-24 as risk-taking behavior allows for adolescent development which is when juveniles are more likely to engage in dangerous actions.

Other studies found that media and community influences the likelihood of adolescents engaging in risky behaviors. The studies mentioned how adults themselves find it hard to resist temptation, but teens are even more susceptible due to developing judgment and decision-making skills. MRI studies indicate that as the brain develops in adolescents the activity in white and grey matter in the brains of adolescents undergo severe changes.

Scientists have concluded that evidence in neuromorphological, neurochemical, and many other areas suggests that the brain remains in its active stage as an adolescent undergoes maturation. The full development and maturation of the prefrontal cortex, vital for self-control and critical analysis, isn't fully done until around the age of 25. Thus, various studies support the notion that juveniles are functionally and intellectually different from full-functioning adults.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[honors410-1011]

"Juvenile crime does happen and we have to deal with it. Our goal is not to investigate 9-year-olds, but we cannot turn a blind eye toward it." - Keith Kameg

[honors410-1011]

I feel that the best way to show how long juveniles are forced to pay for their crimes is through imagery. This image shows how a young child enters the prison system, and many years later the adult version of the offender is still stuck paying for crimes committed at a young age.

[honors410-1011]

What Break Do Children Deserve: A Timeline of Supreme Court Cases

An understanding of where the first attempts to modify the juvenile justice system is crucial in order to understand the current rulings on the sentencing of adolescents. Justice Kennedy, a member of the Supreme Court, has been pivotal to shifting how adolescents are treated by the justice system. He has often been the deciding vote that turned the tide in favor of leniency towards juveniles.

The first questions raised pertaining to adolescents was whether capital punishment should be allowed for juveniles 15 years old and younger. Thompson v. Oklahoma followed a case in 1988 in which 15-year-old William Wayne Thompson and three others murdered his former brother-in-law. Thompson's attorneys claimed his death sentence was unconstitutional since there is a great capacity for growth and change in younger individuals, making capital punishment harsh and inappropriate. The Supreme Court agreed that there is a distinction in culpability between juveniles and adults. The final ruling was that the execution of individuals under 16 is unconstitutional as it violates the 8th amendment.

About a year later, the Court was asked to determine if the age limit should be extended to 16 or 17, which would prohibit execution of anyone at or under these ages. Stanford v. Kentucky followed the case of Kevin Stanford, a 17-year-old who raped and murdered Barbel Poor after robbing her place of work. The Court refused to extend the same leniency to older age groups so execution as a punishment remained for older age divisions.

Discussion on juvenile death penalty would reemerge in 2005, where the Supreme Court was faced with the Roper v. Simmons case. Majority of the judges would overrule Stanford which enforced that executing individuals under the age of 18 violates the 8th amendment. The Court noted that a lack of maturity in juveniles makes it difficult to claim that adolescents were fully knowledgable when committing the crime.

The Court's final decision on Roper v. Simmons, allowed the court system to challenge other extreme sentences as it pertains to juveniles. Graham v. Florida in 2010 followed the case of Graham and three other juveniles who attempted to rob a restaurant. One of Graham's accomplice used a metal bar to strike the manager in the back of the head. After Graham continued to commit crimes, he would be sentenced to life in prison without parole (LWOP). The Court agreed that life in prison without the possibility of parole for nonhomicide offenses violated the 8th amendment. Therefore, giving juveniles a LWOP sentence was deemed unconstitutional.

Approximately two years after the Graham case, there were further modifications to the juvenile justice system. In Miller v. Alabama, the Court prohibited LWOP for adolescents who committed homicides before the age of 18.

Four years after the decision for Miller v. Alabama, the Court decided that Miller should be retroactive. In Montgomery v. Louisiana the majority of the Court agreed that current adults who were sentenced as juveniles and given LWOP could have their case reexamined and be potentially set free. It took several years to rectify the policies that would determine how severely juveniles were punished. Even now, it's difficult to ensure that states follow the new adjustments.

Sources:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/14055342/

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/what-break-do-children-deserve

[honors410-1011]

The Miller v. Alabama case could be a bit difficult to understand given all the law jargon, so I included a youtube video that really helped me break it down!

[honors410-1011]

Here is just one video that was very helpful in understanding the Montgomery v. Louisiana Case. If any of you are interested, I can provide links to other videos that simplify Supreme Court rulings!

[honors410-1011]

The Montgomery v. Louisiana case was settled in 2016, but Montgomery only recently was able to walk free in 2022. It's evident that he is much different person than the young offender who first entered the prison system. It leaves me feeling very dejected that he will be offered no restitution, but it also makes me hopeful that better reform is on the way. Let me know what your opinions are!

[honors410-1011]

In light of discussing a very serious topic, I felt it was necessary to include a comical cartoon. However, the cartoon should only emphasize how young juveniles are being treated, being as they are given the same treatment as fully developed adults.

[honors410-1011]

Biases in LWOP for Juveniles

As mentioned before, LWOP sentences for juveniles were deemed unconstitutional with the Miller v. Alabama ruling in 2012. The Supreme Court held the belief that children are different from adults due to their lack of maturity and higher probability in engaging in risk-taking. Such a ruling stated that children are "categorically less culpable" than adults, and as such should be treated differently.

States like Illinois were against rulings like the ones in Miller and Montgomery since the main belief was that JLWOP ensured the safety of the public. The rationale was mainly that JWLOP led to deterrence. However, studies have shown that JWLOP has no visible deterrence in juvenile crime rates. If anything, research shows that JWLOP increases the likelihood of recidivism among the youth.

The question of who is mainly affect by LWOP must also be posed? This analysis will allow for understanding if the system is inherently discriminatory towards a select group of juveniles. In Illinois alone, research shows that LWOP disproportionately affects marginalized groups of juveniles. 82% of children subjected to LWOP in Illinois are children of color. The United States as a whole doesn't fair much better with 70% of adolescents sentenced to LWOP being children of color.

It's very telling that the majority of the youth penalized with LWOP are either black, or latino. This discriminatory practice of severe sentencing for juveniles should entail further analysis. What does it say of our country that the groups who faced racism and discrimination since the origin of America continue to face racism by the systems meant to protect them?

Sources: https://www.restorejustice.org/learn/juvenile-life-without-parole/

[honors410-1011]

A Question of Freedom by Dwayne Betts (Book Review)

Accomplished teacher and author Dwayne Betts shares his story as a teenager convicted for carjacking at the age of 16. For his crime Betts is sentenced to eight years in prison. Prior to the hijacking, Betts was an honor student with a doting mother. It took many by surprise that an exemplary student like Betts would engage in criminal behavior. Betts explains how many tried to explain his behavior due to his upbringing. He had no father figure which many assumed was the reasoning for his actions. However, Betts is certain that his behavior is not one of a rough upbringing, but rather one of an impulsive teenager. The laws in Virginia, the site where the crime was committed, treats minors as adults when engaging in crimes like carjacking. Betts finds it tragically humorous how a 30-minute mistake cost him 8 years of his life. Betts also recognized the racism present in the justice system, due to the rates of black young men being incarcerated compared to their white counterparts.

Much in topic with juveniles being treated as adults and being forced to serve unjust prison sentences, this book really proved how such a system fails many adolescents. To bring this back to the Miller v. Alabama case, the case that prohibits LWOP for juveniles, this shows a serious issue in the justice system. A question that was brought up in the ruling of Miller was whether LWOP prohibition was enough. It's true that juveniles are no longer facing life in prison, but if their sentences are just as severe, is there truly much progress? This is a case in which the punishment doesn't match the crime. The 8th amendment seeks to ensure that cruel and unusual punishment is not inflicted, but it seems to have no true limits. Dwayne Betts is the perfect paragon of a failed juvenile who was treated as an adult despite having lower control over his impulsively as his brain was still developing.

[honors410-1011]

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson (Book Review)

If there was ever a book that encapsulates the essence of the prison system both for juveniles and adults, it is this one. Bryan Stevenson, a successful lawyer, shares his accounts of marginalized and juvenile groups in the prison system. While the story mainly recounts Stevenson's role in proving the innocence of a wrongfully incarcerated African American known as Walter McMillian, he shares how this relates to the juvenile justice system. Walter faces the death penalty for the murder of a white women, which he had no involvement in. The evidence and witnesses were fabricated which only condemned him to a life in prison until he was forced to face his death. A very determined Stevenson works tirelessly to prove his innocence and is able to drop all charges pressed against him.

Stevenson becomes increasingly focused on the juvenile system when he is is faced with the grim reality of the conditions for incarcerated adolescents. Juveniles are subjected to a fate similar to the death sentence through extremely long sentences and housed in adult prisons where they don't fair well. Stevenson understands the incomplete development of adolescents which is why he becomes a prominent advocate for them.

The reason I enjoyed this book so much is because Stevenson puts into sentences the thoughts I couldn't find words for. I knew the juvenile prison system was lacking something, but knowledge of what that something was always evaded me. One word describes what the juvenile system fails to grant adolescents, and that word is mercy. It's a shame that it took so many different cases like Miller and Montgomery for the justice system to realize there is something morally wrong with how juveniles are treated. It's quite easy to place full blame on a young adolescent when looking at it from an outsiders perspective. This perspective, however, can quickly be changed when one is forced to view how juveniles are treated in the justice system. There is no greater punishment than knowing you have committed a mistake that will cost you your life. Mercy is often forgotten in the juvenile justice system, when it should instead be at the forefront of every adolescent sentencing.

[honors410-1011]

The Opposing View

The Miller v. Alabama ruling dictated that all states were required to follow the final verdict. This meant that states wouldn't be able to sentence adolescents younger than 18 to life without the possibility of parole. The jurisdiction made it so that states wouldn't have the ability to determine within their own states laws whether they wished to proceed with the verdict. A similar claim was made for Montgomery v. Louisiana, which garnered the similar differing opinions. There were two main views on such a rule, one which argued that all states should follow the verdict as the rule is substantive for all states. The opposing view argued that the Court didn't have the power to decide the case for all states, as it should be up to each individual state whether they wanted to implement the Miller, or Montgomery ruling into their justice system.

Against: Justice Scalia was a strong dissenter of the Supreme Court ruling. He argued that the principle of finality of decisions ensures that implementation of new constitutional rules are a matter of state choice. In his dissent he also argued that the Miller case does not create a substantive rule but rather established a process that ensures courts consider an adolescents age prior to imposing a penalty. In a separate case he also argued against the retroactive property that came with the Montgomery ruling. He claims that the Court can't force states to apply constitutional rules that didn't exist at the time of the conviction, thus the constitutional right can't be applied retroactively.

Personal Opinion: While Justice Scalia does have a point in trying to explain that all power of finality shouldn't be given to the Supreme Court, I think it also stands to reason that on certain issues it should be. Typically the final jurisdiction is up to the State as their justice system caters to their population. However, with certain issues, like the protection of juveniles, there must be systems in place that allow the Court to overturn State decision. If the Supreme Court allowed States to individually decide the final verdict, then it would make it difficult to implement the Miller and Montgomery rulings. This would allow states to violate the 8th amendment, which is a far greater offense than denying States the right to decide.

Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-280, https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/miller-v-alabama-and-juvenile-life-without-parole-laws

[honors410-1011]

Opinion piece: Juveniles are just that juveniles, meaning that we should recognize that to try and treat them as adults is an error in the justice system. This does mean they deserve no consequence for their crimes, but rather that the form in which they are punished should look to making them change. Several scientific studies indicate that the young brain is malleable to experience, so if we teach our adolescents and help them grow, then we can not only make society a safer place but ensure young offenders aren't failed in the system.

[honors410-1011]

Where There is Change, There is Hope

Little improvement in releasing adults who were given LWOP as juveniles, can make many lose faith that anything will ever change. However, the rulings of Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana was the first sign that change was imminent. States must now grant every juvenile who was given a LWOP sentence a chance at release. The decision not only offers to adolescents severely punished, but also to adults who face the death penalty for minor offenses. Since the Montgomery ruling can be applied retroactively, many cases can now be brought forward that were given final verdicts in a different era which might be invalid in todays society.

Substantive rule was applied to both Miller and Montgomery cases which means that juvenile life without parole must become a rare occurrence. If States continue to reject this notion, they face repercussions for violating the 8th amendment which is meant to protect juveniles. Even more appealing is that the rulings prohibit the death penalty for adolescents who are still undergoing physical and chemical development.

Another issue that has become prominent is the extremely long sentences that can be given to juveniles, which fall short of being labeled as a life in prison sentence. There is hope, however, with the recent changes in the juvenile justice system that eventually just like the abolishment of the death penalty and LWOP for juveniles, that long prison sentences can become reduced. As long as there is the ability to reform the juvenile justice system, there is hope that the system becomes more geared towards rehabilitating juveniles rather than imprisoning them.

Source: https://socialchangenyu.com/harbinger/reaction-to-montgomery-v-louisiana-the-supreme-court-offers-hope-to-juveniles-sentenced-to-die-in-prison-and-a-little-to-adults-as-well/

[honors410-1011]

Conclusion

It appears that the juvenile justice system moved backwards instead of progressing forwards in the late 1900's. Before the purpose of the juvenile system was to rehabilitate rather than to punish, but an increase in crime rates led society to forget the initial goal. This has cost many adolescents, especially ones from minority groups, to face severe punishment at the hands of the justice system.

With new information becoming available not only to the general public but to the justice system, there has been a push to adapt archaic policies to evolving times. This is best exemplified with changes to the extent of punishment a juvenile can endure and how they are treated in the justice system. This trend aims to follow its original purpose of rehabilitation instead of punishment.

The first sign of change was seen in the Thompson v. Oklahoma case which sought to limit the amount of individuals who would face the death penalty. The age limit was further extended with future cases which sought to understand that there is a scientific basis to the lack of maturity in adolescents. The Miller and Montgomery rulings aimed to prevent cruel and unusual punishment of juveniles which in turn would violate the 8th amendment.

Furthermore, a common pattern quickly becomes apparent in all the rulings discussed and the evidence that substantiate these cases. That pattern lies in the realization that juveniles are young in every way there is to be young. Adolescents lack the ability to reason, control their impulsivity, and engage in critical thinking as adults are able to do. A just and right justice system recognizes that juveniles deserve different systems, since the original purpose should always hold true. The need for growth and change of juveniles will create a higher functioning society than severe punitive sentences ever can.

[honors410-1011]

References

Arain, Mariam, et al. “Maturation of the Adolescent Brain.” Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2013, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/.

Betts, R. D. (2010). A question of freedom: A memoir of learning, survival, and coming of age in prison. Avery/Penguin. 

Betts, R. D. (2019, February 25). What break do children deserve? juveniles, crime, and justice Kennedy's influence on the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The Yale Law Journal - https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/what-break-do-children-deserve

Ink, Social. “Reaction to Montgomery v. Louisiana: The Supreme Court Offers Hope to  Juveniles Sentenced to Die in Prison, and a Little to Adults as Well.” N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 5 Dec. 2017, https://socialchangenyu.com/harbinger/reaction-to-montgomery-v-louisiana-the-supreme-court-offers-hope-to-juveniles-sentenced-to-die-in-prison-and-a-little-to-adults-as-well/. 

“Juvenile Life without Parole (JLWOP).” Juvenile Law Center, Restore Justice Foundation, 2020, https://jlc.org/issues/juvenile-life-without-parole. 

LII Supreme Court Resources. “Montgomery v. Louisiana.” Oyez , 25 Jan. 2016, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-280.

MacCord, Joan. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice: Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control. National Academy Press, 2001. 

NBC News. “Henry Montgomery Free after Nearly 58 Years | Nightly News Films.” YouTube, Youtube, 21 Nov. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yAGcjtaOzA. 

Quimbee. “Miller v. Alabama Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - Youtube.” Youtube, Youtube, Apr. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri3v8wBAI4g. 

Quimbee. “Montgomery v. Louisiana Case Brief Summary Law Case Explained.” YouTube, YouTube, Apr. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/?watch=. 

Simmons, et al. “Chapter Five Juvenile Courts. - Ppt Download.” SlidePlayer, Renate Jorgensen, Apr. 2019, https://slideplayer.com/slide/14055342/. 

Stevenson, B. (2015). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. Spiegel & Grau. 

Teigen, Anne. “Brief Miller v. Alabama and Juvenile Life without Parole Laws.” National Conference of State Legislatures, 26 Apr. 2023, https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/miller-v-alabama-and-juvenile-life-without-parole-laws.